Thomas Kuhn revisited (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, November 14, 2011, 00:21 (4737 days ago) @ David Turell

Matt Ridley of the WSJ discusses the resistence to new ideas in science:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577023893088328710.html?KEYWORDS...

Why peer reivew is a form of idea control.

"After giving a lecture on scientific heresy last week, I was asked how you can tell when a scientific heretic is right rather than mad. I confessed that, as I've grown older, I've becoming more confused on this point. The problem is not just that vindicated heretics are rare, but also that the heretic who's right will be just as partisan—avidly collecting evidence to confirm his idea—as the heretic who's wrong."

It's um... pretty simple. Instead of attacking the ideas from a theoretical viewpoint, attack them experimentally. It's not that confusing of a concept at all.

David, you talk all the time about the "evils" of peer review, however, as Kuhn noted in his own work--heretics in science are almost always vindicated if their ideas have any experimental merit. The process works, albeit in a human fashion. Similar things happened to Higgs.

But you know what caused the truth to come out? Experimental results. Even the most diehard proponent of a theory gives way when experiment clearly shows a better way. (Or in the case of Higgs, makes it one of the only ways to make sense of experimental data.)

[EDITED](REMOVED TEXT)

The real reason you balk at peer review is the fact that ID is not considered a scientific but a philosophical proposition. Of course, you know this already--but the "censorship" that ID writers tend to be exposed to is because of the kinds of papers they submit to. They don't submit these papers to journals of philosophy as would be correct, they try to submit them to technical journals. If you submit a paper about ID that actually creates an experiment that can advance your argument, THEN you deserve a shot at a technical journal. Until then, submit them to the philosophical journals where they belong.

Peer review should exist at a minimum to prevent THIS kind of "science."
[EDIT] The above comment was for a deleted portion which may/may not be pertinent, but it discussed that the DI likes to submit papers for the purpose of couching philosophy as science, knowing full well that the general public often doesn't have enough philosophical awareness to realize what's going on. THAT is what peer-review should be used for.
[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"